Report on Indiana’s Early Childhood Education Funding Reductions and a Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Analysis

Executive Summary

Recent legislative changes in Indiana have resulted in significant funding reductions for early childhood education, directly impacting the state’s On My Way Pre-K program. This report analyzes the consequences of these cuts through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting adverse effects on education, poverty reduction, gender equality, economic growth, and inequality. The decision to halve the program’s capacity and reduce financial support for families undermines critical progress toward these global goals.

Impact on SDG 4: Quality Education

The funding cuts present a direct challenge to achieving SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. By reducing access to foundational early learning, the state risks long-term negative educational outcomes for its children.

• The number of children receiving On My Way Pre-K vouchers has been reduced by 50%, from 5,000 to 2,500.
• This reduction in access to quality pre-kindergarten programs is projected to create greater academic challenges for students as they enter formal schooling.
• Childcare providers, such as Little Duckling Early Learning School, are experiencing significant funding losses (40%), forcing the closure of classrooms and reducing the availability of quality educational environments.

Impact on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

The reduction in childcare support creates significant economic barriers for low-income families, hindering efforts related to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Affordable childcare is essential infrastructure that enables parental participation in the workforce.

• Weekly tuition assistance for families has been cut in half, from $300 to $150, increasing the financial burden on households.
• This decision forces parents, particularly single mothers, to reduce work hours or leave the workforce entirely, thereby threatening family economic stability.
• A waitlist of over 27,000 children for the state’s Child Care Development Fund underscores the immense, unmet need for affordable care among low-income working families.

Impact on SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The policy changes disproportionately affect women and economically disadvantaged communities, thereby exacerbating existing disparities and impeding progress toward SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• The increased cost and reduced availability of childcare place a heavier burden on single mothers, such as Cierra Ellis-Strayhorn, who face increased pressure to secure sufficient income while managing childcare.
• The cuts deal a significant blow to community programs in neighborhoods already facing economic challenges, such as those served by the Indy East Promise Neighborhoods initiative.
• The impact is felt most acutely by families who cannot afford full-price tuition, deepening the divide between those who can access early education and those who cannot.

Community Response and Outlook

In response to the state-level reductions, local community organizations are attempting to mitigate the negative impacts. However, their resources are limited, and the systemic challenges remain.

• Organizations like the Edna Martin Christian Center are increasing outreach through home visiting programs to connect families with essential resources and support parent-child development.
• Advocates and affected families are calling on state decision-makers to recognize the broad, detrimental effects of these cuts on children, families, and the state’s long-term progress toward sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on cutting funding for early childhood education and its consequences for low-income families, single mothers, and children’s development links the text to the following SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article discusses the financial strain on low-income families and single mothers due to reduced childcare support, which can exacerbate or lead to poverty.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – The core issue is the reduction in funding for “On My Way Pre-K program,” which directly impacts access to quality early childhood development and education.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The article specifically mentions the struggle of a “single mom” and notes that the cuts will “push more parents out of the workforce,” a burden that disproportionately affects women, thereby hindering their economic empowerment.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – By making childcare less affordable and accessible, the funding cuts create a barrier for parents to maintain employment, which affects the goal of full and productive employment.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The cuts disproportionately affect “low-income families” and programs in “neighborhoods already facing economic challenges,” thus widening the inequality gap in access to essential services and opportunities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific problems described, the following SDG targets are most relevant:

• Target 4.2: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.” The article’s entire focus is on the state’s “On My Way Pre-K program” and other early childhood initiatives, and the negative impact the cuts will have on children being prepared for school.
• Target 1.3: “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.” The childcare vouchers and tuition support mentioned are forms of social protection. The article details how these systems are being cut (“slashed funding,” “reducing weekly tuition support”), directly impacting the vulnerable families they are meant to support.
• Target 5.4: “Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies…” Affordable, state-supported childcare is a key public service that enables parents, particularly women, to participate in the paid workforce. The reduction of this support undermines this target.
• Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men…” The article explicitly states that the lack of affordable childcare will “push more parents out of the workforce,” which is a direct barrier to achieving this target.
• Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.” The funding cuts specifically harm low-income families and those in economically challenged neighborhoods, hindering their economic inclusion and access to foundational services for their children.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several explicit and implied indicators that can be used to measure progress (or regression) towards the identified targets:

• For Target 4.2 (Quality Early Education):
  • Explicit Indicator: The “number of children receiving On My Way Pre-K vouchers” is a direct measure of access. The article states this number was cut from 5,000 to 2,500.
  • Explicit Indicator: The “number of children on the waitlist for the state’s Child Care Development Fund” (currently over 27,000) is a clear indicator of unmet demand for early childhood care.
  • Implied Indicator: The number of available classrooms or slots in early learning centers. The article mentions one center is “closing two classrooms” due to a 40% funding loss.
• For Target 1.3 (Social Protection):
  • Explicit Indicator: The monetary value of tuition support. The article specifies that “weekly assistance” was lowered “from $300 to $150,” quantifying the reduction in social protection benefits.
• For Target 8.5 (Decent Work):
  • Implied Indicator: The labor force participation rate of parents with young children. The article’s warning that the decision will “push more parents out of the workforce” suggests that this rate is a key metric to monitor.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wrtv.com